• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORSSOCIETY34th ANNUAl MEETING-1990 SOCIAL INFLUENCE AND PREFERENCE OF DIRECT-MANIPULATION AND KEYBOARD-COMMAND COMPUTER INTERFACES Michael S. Wogalter and Richard L. Frei Department of Psychology Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Troy, New York 12180 ABSTRACf Direct-manipulation and command-based computer interfaces have each found their own following among microcomputer users. This study explores some of the differences between these two groups of computer users. Participants completed a questionnaire that requested their microcomputer usage and ownership, usage and preference of various command methods and pointing devices, the microcomputers most of their friends use, the microcomputer they would be most willing to purchase next, and their preference for several models of microcomputers. The results showed that participants preferred pointing devices (e.g., mouse) compared to other input methods (e.g., arrow keys) regardless of their prior usage. They tended to use an interface similar to that of their friends' and they reported greater willingness to purchase a computer with an interface similar to the one they most often use. In general, the results suggest that social influence and interface familiarity are important factors in determining which interface people choose to use. Being surrounded by others who use a similar computer interface eases the burden (in terms of effort, time, and expense) of obtaining relevant computer information. An implication of this work is that these variables may hinder approval and acceptance of improved computer interface designs offered by human factors specialists. INTRODUCfION Human factors specialists have dedicated considerable and are likely to develop a relationship with these persons. Thus, attention and research to various aspects of computer interface people will tend to affiliate with others, in part, because they have usability. Currently, the marketplace offers two types of interface similar preferences in computers. (Shneiderman, 1987): keyboard-command (e.g., IBM and IBM- clone personal computers) and direct-manipulation (e.g., Apple In addition, Pace and Allison (1990) has recently shown that Macintosh and Commodore Amiga computers). Keyboard- people tend to value things (e.g., possessions) associated with command interfaces tend to use character-based input and displays their in-group more than objects associated with their out-group. and usually employ keyboard arrow keys to position a curser; Therefore. with greater expertise. users of one interface should direct-manipulation interfaces tend use graphic displays, and increase their liking of the familiar interface and increase their selection of commands using a pointing device (e.g., mouse). disliking of the less familiar computer interface. Thus, the social Both kinds of interface seem to offer advantages and psychological model predicts that people will develop an in- disadvantages. For example, research suggests that experts can group/out-group attitude toward computer interfaces and the issue keyboard commands faster with a keyboard-command people who use them. interface (Karat, McDonald, & Anderson, 1986); whereas, novices learn direct-manipulation interfaces at a faster rate (e.g., So, while both interfaces have certain advantages, people's Brems & Whitten, 1987). The kind of pointing method also choice of which computer to use and to purchase may be due to affects speed and accuracy. Albert (1982) found that in a cursor factors other than those that have been the main concern of human positioning task, faster methods of input (touchscreen, trackball, factors specialists, that of interface design issues such as usability joystick) tended to be the least accurate, while the slowest method and ease-of-use. The purpose of the present report is to describe of input (keyboard) was the most accurate. Nonperformance some evidence for the parallel of these social psychological attributes are also important, such as the user's satisfaction and notions with respect to direct-manipulation and keyboard- preference. However, satisfaction and preference do not always command interface users. concur with performance. For example, Mack and Lang (1989) found that although subjects made significantly more precision Specifically, the present research examines whether users of pointing errors using a stylus and a mouse, they preferred these direct-manipulation and keyboard-command interfaces differ with two input methods over the keyboard-command input method. respect to a number of computer-related factors. Of particular interest is the relationship of prior interface usage (familiarity) and In the last several years, two camps of computer users have others' social influence on choice of microcomputer interface and developed, with each group championing one interface over the purchase intentions. In addition, the present research examines other. Both the direct-manipulation and the keyboard-command whether the direct-manipulation and keyboard-command interface users claim that their interface is better than the other. Emotional users differ in their pattern of usage and preference for computer debate aside, the phenomenon itself appears to be similar to the in- command methods, input devices, time engaged in specific group/out-group bias described by social psychologists. A large activities, and preference for particular microcomputers. body of social psychology research (see Berscheid, 1985) suggests that people like and tend to affiliate with others who have ME1HOD similar likes and dislikes. Conversely, people have greater Participants disliking of others who do not share the same attitudes. This model of social behavior makes several predictions. Because One-hundred thirty-four students participated. Forty-six were computers involve considerable learning time and effort to from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (Troy, New York) illld 88 develop expertise, people may seek assistance from others who were from Rice University (Houston, Texas). they like (e.g., friends, coworkers) to facilitate their computer- related decisions (e.g., what hardware and software to buy). To Materials and Procedure balance the relationship, novice users are likely to seek affiliation with persons who previously helped them, and thus, are more The questionnaire was designed and written to avoid showing likely to develop social relationships. As users become more any bias toward a particular kind of interface. Most items were expert on a particular interface, they will then tend to help others, 907 PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS SOCIE1Y 34th ANNUAL MEETING-1990 open-ended in that participants generated (wrote in) the kinds of Space was provided next to the items in the questionnaire for computers that they own and/or use, that they wish to purchase, responses. For items requesting names of computers, participants and that their friends use. Only the last item of the questionnaire were given instructions emphasizing that they try to give both the named particular computer makes and models. The specific make and model. For the items requesting percentages, questionnaire items are shown below: participants were instructed to be sure that the sums totaled 100%. (1) Microcomputer owner: Do you presently own a micro- Virtually all of the participants complied with this request and the data from the few that did not were included "as is" in the computer? analyses. For some items (questions 5, 6, 7, 9, & 13), "other" (2) Time of ownership: If you presently own a was listed as an additional alternative response and participants microcomputer, please list which !dnd(s) of microcomputer(s) were told to describe their answer if they selected this answer. you presently own and how long you have owned each (in "Other" was selected very infrequently and was not counted in the months). analyses. Participants were told that if they were unsure of an (3) Microcomputer use: Please list the microcomputers that answer, that they should give their best guess. you have used over the past six months. Please list them in The questionnaire also requested demographic information an order that corresponds to how much you have used them. (e.g., sex, age, handedness) and other items concerning use of Also, next to each please give your best estimate of how workstations, minicomputers, and mainframe computers. These much total time you have spent using each in total number variables were not found to be significant in any of the analyses of hours for the past six months. and, thus, are not discussed in this report. (4) Microcomputer learned first: What kind of microcomputer did you learn to use fIrst? RESULTS (5) % time in specific activities: In the past 6 months, Categorization of Microcomputers what percentage of your time using microcomputers did you spend for the following activities: (a) accounting, (b) In an earlier pilot study, names of 11 makes and models of computer aided design (CAD), (c) communications, (d) microcomputers were sorted into two piles by 12 Rensselaer desktop publishing, (e) electronic mail, (f) games, (g) Polytechnic Institute students. They were told that in one pile, graphics, (h) music, (i) programming, U) spreadsheets, (k) they should place all those computers that are primarily statistical analysis, and (I) word processing. graphically-based and which usually employ an external pointing device to select commands from menus (direct-manipulation (6) % time using command methods: For the following interface). In the

Load more

  5

Copy Link